Their technology seems to be legit. Any thoughts or info on this company. Sounds like this test may be too disruptive for our current medical system and insurance structure.
Grail. Next big thing?
- Thread starter anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Looks interesting. I will be following this test to see where it goes.
Their Regional Business Director in the NE is probably one of the best people you could work for. Came from MYRIAD. One of the gems in this industry which is full of terrible leaders.
Do they have their shit together is the question. Having a legit test to offer is only part of the equation. Reasonable goals and a well thought out strategy combined with a good understanding of the current market is key. Can anyone working at grail comment on this?
I'd like to know this as well. The test seems like a no brainer. How's the company doing.
Base salary is competitive. Most aren’t making bonus unless you live in a good area (anyone who has been in the business knows the more progressive areas like NYC, CA, TX). Sales team & company as a whole is expanding significantly due to success since product launch 1 year ago. Overall, it’s a place you want to be, especially this early in the product life cycle.
Paying $950 cash for a test that has a 1% chance of detecting cancer, then a 25-50% chance of that positive being a false-positive seems like a hard sell. Skeptics say this will lead to over-diagnosis, unnecessary follow-ups, imaging/testing, treatments, and patient fear. Hopefully insurance will eventually cover it, the science will continue to improve, and competition will bring the price down. They are definitely on to something big but it will take some time.
Liquid biopsy is challenging because it has to be present in blood and done annually… can’t rely on this years $900 test and rerun it next year hoping to catch an early stage cancer - how many $900 tests do you run and then follow up with screenings and surveillance or treatments or surgery
Sounds like you assume every test is going to come back positive and require further work up but that is not the case.
Also you aren’t going to follow a screen with another screen so you do not understand the test or the process.
Confident statement with no data to support it...
Here is why you are wrong,
They have a 1-2% positivity rate which equals 2-4 positives out of every 200 tests. They claim their false-positive rate is 0.5% which is 1 out of every 200 tests. 1/4 = 25%, 1/2 = 50%. I'll say it again, 25-50% of every Galleri positive is a false-positive. Their 0.5% false-positive claim is deceiving because people like you think it's based on 0.5% of every positive result when it is actually 0.5% of every result.
Now hold this L for me.
"In a 2020 paper, the researchers calculated that for every 100,000 people screened in real-world conditions, Galleri would return 1,406 positive results, of which 691 would be false positives — less than 1% of those screened.
But William C. Taylor, a Harvard University physician and population medicine researcher, called that a "misleading" miscalculation. If 691 of 1,406 positive results are wrong, the false positive rate is 49% — almost half."
A single blood test claims to detect dozens of cancers. Skeptics wouldn’t bet your life on it.
Incorrect. There is a difference between specificity / false positive rate & positive predictive value. Learn how these are calculated.
Close to a grand to tell you that you could have potential for cancer at some unknown random time in the future. You would be better served getting a Multi-cancer screen that works on tumor antigens yearly like you would a psa or cholesterol test. It will give you more of a state-of-the-union of current tumor activity so you can act on it. One test and signatera are 2 of them
Correct. Why spend a grand on just yourself when for that same amount you could test 5 family members or more...
With a FP rate that high this early on.. I would not spend almost 1k on a test that may lead to unnecessary outcomes (i.e., invasive procedures and advanced and irreversible medical outcomes) too risky at this time.
https://www.genomicinterpretation.org/grail-galleri-testing-proving-to-have-high-false-positive-rates/
Insurance obviously doesn’t cover the test. I have a feeling they will soon call it experimental and unreliable and will deny the follow-ups ordered based on positive results. This won’t end well.
Insurance obviously doesn’t cover the test. I have a feeling they will soon call it experimental and unreliable and will deny the follow-ups ordered based on positive results. This won’t end well.